Thoughts on Graham Hancock and the SAA – Part II

Though my thesis has kept me from maintaining any schedule of writing (or anything else for that matter) this post in particular was pushed back in order to review some of the responses to the Society for American Archaeology’s thematic issue covering Pseudoarchaeology and specifically looking at Graham Hancock’s recent book America Before. Going through a number of the Twitter threads, YouTube videos/streams, as well as blog and Reddit posts discussing the SAA’s Record has certainly taken some time, and I have probably only gone through 20% tops of the responses. That said, I will continue my brief overviews of the individual articles in the Record and then link to some videos and posts that have been shared in the (roughly) two months that have passed. Without further ado:

The next article in the Record is by Jason Colavito, an independent historical researcher over at his blog jasoncolavito.com/blog (this is the link provided by the Record, but it does not seem to be up at the time of this writing). His article focuses upon the “Whitewashing [of] American Prehistory” found within Hancock’s latest work. The focus is upon the Mound Builder research during the early days of the USA’s existence and, though parts of the article diverge from Hancock and focus upon Wills DeHaas, Thomas Jefferson, and even the Theosophical Society, albeit briefly, there is one interesting meta-connection Hancock himself here.

Within the first two paragraphs of the response, Colavito references two pieces of literature both penned by himself (a frequent note of criticism from those more sympathetic to Hancock’s side of the argument). Though his book The Mound Builder Myth: Fake History and America’s Hunt for a “Lost White Race” is still unpublished as of now, the other article, itself a review of the Hancock work in question, was written in 2019 by Colavito for Skeptic magazine (volume 24 number 2, table of contents here). Skeptic magazine is the product of the publishing branch of the Skeptics Society. Amongst his many hats at the Society, a gentleman by the name of Michael Shermer happens to also be the current Editor-in-Chief of the magazine, and it is via Shermer that the small yet interesting connection to Hancock arises. As referred to in the previous blog post, both Shermer and Hancock (as well as Randall Carlson, the “Renegade Scholar”) had it out for each other on the Joe Rogan Experience #961, streamed back in May of 2017. Though the episode does not always revolve around the Hancock vs Academy rivalry (a “beef better than MMA” according to the top comment of the podcast), it does show some of Hancock’s frustrations with misrepresentation of his material specifically from other writers for Skeptic.

Though the Colavito article brings up a few ideas showcasing some intrinsic disagreements between the Academy and Hancock’s worldview, I will save that for later in this post, or perhaps the follow up post.

Moving on, we see the return of John W. Hoopes from University of Kansas – who also wrote the introduction of the Record. Hoopes focuses upon “The Mysterious Origins of Fringe” and, in my opinion, almost immediately hits upon the fundamental difference professional and pseudo-archaeology: the notion of “speculative metaphysics”. Though his article does veer off into a list of examples of Victorian-era researchers and theories that are largely ignored today for a variety of reasons, I believe that Hoopes, perhaps unintentionally even, provides a bit of a bridge between the two camps. According to Hoopes, Hancock deeply laments the inability of so-called Orthodox Archaeology to “synthesize metaphysics and science”. It is through this lens that the reason pseudoarchaeology and “mainstream” archaeology are seemingly intrinsically incompatible, mainly their definitions and weight put behind terms such as “empirical evidence”.

I will discuss this more at length down the line, but Hancock comes at the synthesis and interpretations of any data (archaeological or otherwise) that deals with the Human Story from a fairly “psychedelic” point of view. The unknown unknowns of human consciousness (itself an utterly fascinating field of study) play just as important role in the archaeological record as pottery found at Göbekli Tepe. Hoopes, on the other hand, as well as the voices behind the Record seem to be far more comfortable keeping a “reality-first” view of science. And understandably so. This is not to speculate at all upon the relationship any archaeologist has with psychedelics and what can be learned from their utilisation, but few scientists are ready to fully question the validity or superiority of our “baseline, problem-solving” state of consciousness, a fact that Hancock himself has questioned.

This thought transitions us to the final direct response to Hancock’s book in the Record, “America Before as a Paranormal Charter” by Jeb Card from Miami University (an author of Spooky Archaeology). Card observes the tendency of what he calls alternative archaeology to confabulate material evidence with myth-cycles as a way to interpret data from the past in a vastly different way. He raises a very interesting point in the following sentence: “For a book focusing on archaeology of the Americas, America Before spends a lot of time on Dynastic Egyptian texts and the Book of the Dead” (emphasis as is). Card continues to provide a number of examples of Victorian-era theories being hinged upon “comparative mythology treated as quasi-historical record” which is a fascinating list itself to continue research in this area.

Card’s conclusion is one more upon the media analysis lens, deeming Hancock “the rock star of alternative archaeology”. And although he fundamentally disagrees with him, Card does admit that Hancock has become a rather popular figure in the realm of alternative or sacred knowledge due to his engagement with podcasts such as Joe Rogan’s. This is further discussed in a stream directly responding to this same issue of Record by a channel called UnchartedX. I am rather new to UnchartedX’s channel, but I have seen a few streams and interviews with him and he seems to be an extraordinarily passionate student of history and, I believe, even personal acquaintances with Hancock himself. You can find his website (with links to his twitter, etc) here. To close his article, Card offers, in my opinion, an unforgiving assessment of Hancock’s persona as a researcher, explicitly deeming him “not a failed version of an archaeologist. [Rather] He is a successful mythographer of a post-science age”. This is rather different than what some would say about proponents of alternative theories of science, rather that they are “scientists who have lost their way”.

While this is not a perfect view of the issue in my opinion, it is one that is softer on the division lines, and seems to be more intrinsically created to provide a bridge between the two opposing camps. While there are pros and cons on either side, a healthy example of the “softer” approach could be found in the Netflix documentary Behind the Curve. At some point during the film, at a Science Stand-up night of all things, a young scholar says that he views Flat Earthers, also an alternative view of current scientific data and evidence, as scientists who have been led astray. They harbour many characteristics that are widely acknowledged as commendable within the scientific community, curiosity, commitment, a discomfort of accepting the status quo with no questions, but that some of that is applied in a different path (and perhaps led astray by some more “conspiratorial” mindsets, a marker that you cannot separate from these alternative views of science). I found it surprising here that Card would provide such a harsh line in the sand, even if only because it seems to play more into Hancock’s narrative that the Academy is knowingly keeping Hancock out as a personality (a notion that is discussed in the UnchartedX stream above).

It is also in Card’s conclusion that I feel a noticeable appreciation for what has been sparked from “fun” or “engaging” versions of archaeology. Hoopes, in the previous article, for example concludes with a passage that sums up a wonderful appreciation for what has helped get Archaeology to where it is today, for better or for worse:

As much as archaeologists complain about pseudoarchaeology and its esoteric milieu, we do also enjoy some of the its fruits. It is out of an esoteric tradition in fiction that came Lord of the Rings, Star Trek, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Harry Potter, Game of Thrones, and all of their associated products (including thousands of video games [shouts out to #archaeogaming]). These entertain us and stimulate our imaginations, whether they reveal timeless truths or are simply good fun. Some even inspire new archaeologists.

John W. Hoopes

I believe it is healthy to recall what it was that once drew us to the wonders of Deep History and the Human Story, and if we are being honest, I believe many of us will find some form of “esoteric” or “pseudo” versions of archaeology that sparked that passion deep within us. For me it was Indiana Jones. For others it might have been the thrill of secrets told by Erich Von Däniken. For others, still, it might have been the narrative brilliance of C. W. Ceram’s Gods, Graves and Scholars. I have no doubt that a generation of future archaeologists have been inspired by hearing about some of these studies on a Joe Rogan episode featuring Hancock or even finding one of Hancock’s books at a book sale. For that we should remain thankful, as the story of the Human Experience is deep and magnificent. On that, I believe both camps can agree

Thoughts on Graham Hancock and the SAA – Part I

As some may have noticed from the Society for American Archaeology (SAA) latest issue of their journal Record, Graham Hancock’s website post, and the Archaeological Twitter community at large, Graham Hancock and the SAA are crossing paths this autumn once again. This seems to have been sparked by the latest issue of Record which was devoted to “Pseudoarchaeology, Scholarship, and Popular Interests in the Past in the Present”. Of course, I was interested, but it was not until the aforementioned post from Graham Hancock discussing his prevalence in the issue (which he is not too wrong, with pages 8-30 mostly focused around the claims in his latest book America Before: The Key to Earth’s Lost Civilization) that I decided to really add it to my reading list and, although I should really be finishing up thesis (yes, I am still quite behind) I am just finishing up reading through the bulk of the Record issue and, though I did not finish up America First back when it came out in April, I have listened to about half a dozen of the lectures by Hancock in his America First lecture series, and I will simply be providing some of my thoughts on this latest development of the strained relationship between Graham Hancock and both the SAA and Archaeologists in general.

Full disclaimer here, I do not wish to dive too deeply into the scientific debunking or proving of any of Hancock’s claims, contemporary or historical, as the space for such discourse is elsewhere at the present time in my opinion. I merely wish to discuss my personal thoughts on Hancock and “Psuedoarchaeology” in general in regards to #SciComm and Public Engagement. That said, let’s begin with the Introduction to the Hancock section of the Record and a brief overview of how the issue is laid out.

The issue is not really a review of the book, John Hoopes of the University of Kansas says right at the beginning in the Introduction:

The following articles do not specifically review America Before or similar works of pseudoarchaeology. Instead, they seek to place this material in a broader context and make it easier to answer questions from students, journalists, or members of the general public that derive from incorrect information.

And as Hoopes concludes the brief Introduction, he expands upon this sentiment as follows:

We intent our articles in this special thematic section of the SAA Archaeological Record to place this material within a deeper historical context, one informed by a familiarity with the Western esoteric tradition, folklore about paranormal and supernatural phenomena, the impacts of popular culture on scientific literacy, the misuse of scientific data, and persistent beliefs in mythological explanations about the ancient past.

Right of the bat, this seems probably net good for both parties. I will revisit this idea later, but this seems to be partially what Hancock wishes to be awarded over the span of his career: tangible and respectful engagement of the mainstream scientific community, and I am uncertain how much more “mainstream” one can get than the bulk of a thematic section of the SAA Archaeological Record. While the articles do address the scientific merit of Hancock’s claims, I will admit they do so mostly loosely and wrapped under the larger direction of Received History or Public Engagement than the raw science (which, in fairness, it would be difficult to grapple with the heavy-lifting of a scientific proving or disproving given each article being no longer than five pages) but it is a start. Hoopes ends the Introduction with a welcome reminder that “[w]hile it is easy to mock and dismiss fringe theories, from Bigfoot to Atlantis to ancient aliens, appearances of elitism or superiority harm legitimate archaeology and turn public opinion against us.” which I agree with completely, and as this twitter thread (among others) reminds us, many of us who are interested in the past of our species were once equally fascinated and enthralled by similar stories told by Hancock, von Däniken, and others.

The first “real” article in the section (we will hear from Hoopes a little later on) comes from Jennifer Raff also from the University of Kansas. The section dives heavily into it by starting off with the chuckle-worthy title of “Y Not a Pacific Migration? Misunderstandings of Genetics in Service to Pseudoarchaeology”. This article is written knowing full-well its position in the early days of the “genomics revolution” in archaeology, and while it is a fascinating topic it is not one that is easy to dive into. Blimey, my good friend’s thesis is currently about genetics and ancient DNA and despite countless hours of readings and discussions with her over the past year I don’t fully understand the nuances of this field of study. Poor Raff is expected to explain the misapplication of such minute and vague findings and theories in under three pages. What results is a wonderfully concise (though perhaps noticeably incomplete, which is by design) summary of the merits and shortcomings of the Trans-Pacific Migration Model, the Paleoamerican (or Paleoindian) Morphology Hypothesis, and a brief introduction to the Population Y genetic footprint (the very Population that the title of the article derives its name).

Again, despite my recent readings into the subject and my personal curiosity, a bit of the terminology was over my head both as a non-geneticist and as not having as much exposure to the archaeology of the Americas in my education to date. However, the article is straightforward enough, and although it does claim some finality among current geneticists, it allows for the facts that the current limit of data availability and technological advancements do provide a “ceiling”of answers that can be gleaned in 2019. Due to the focused direction of the article, choosing only a few select studies to discuss, the further reading from this article would provide quite a fair “jump in the deep end” to anyone interested in the exciting work being done in this field, even if it is a bit daunting (or absurd) to see some citations take up half the entire column in order to cite an article with 100 (literally and exactly) authors. And no, they aren’t even in alphabetical order, but such is academia.

The next article is from Carl Feagans, an archaeologist with the U.S. Forest Service. This article in particular is of note because the Feagans in question is mentioned by Hancock himself in his response post mentioned at the beginning of this post. Hancock expresses grave concern over the fact that an Amazon account by the name of “cfeagans” – assumed to be the same Carl Feagans as the author of the article – giving America Before a two-star review on Amazon. What Hancock is really upset with here, however, is the fact that some 319 people “found that review helpful” and this sizeable public approval, under the Amazon review framework, was enough to push the disappointing review to the top review section. Hancock expresses dismay, or perhaps just confusion, at the fact that a vast majority of reviews for the book are four or five star reviews, and even goes so far as to imply that it is due to “structured and organized” forces that this review in particular has jumped to the top. Whether this is evidence of a large scale “coverup” or simply audience approval seems to be left in the air, but I think that the fact that the cfeagans review is easily the longest and most comprehensive review on the product page, even going so far as to include a Works Cited at the end (that is how you know it was an academic who wrote it) easily speaks for itself.

This article is also interesting as it covers the Cerutti Mastodon, which is a fascinating find and developing story and easily one of the highlights of Hancock’s most recent appearance on Joe Rogan’s Podcast #1284, which was released a day prior to the US publication of America Before (skip to roughly 22:10 for the beginning of the Mastodon discussion). The discussion of the finding, dating, and validity of the Cerutti Mastodon finds is nothing short of exhilarating (relatively) to follow. I will not delve into that here, but the original publication in Nature as well as this response are as good as any places to start.

That said, Feagans provides an introductory view of the case, though for such a nuanced discussion his Works Cited may prove to be a better place to begin for those interested in the details. What Feagans really starts to get into in his piece, as well as one of my absolute passions in academia, is why it seems to be the case that archaeologists are unable to engage the public’s attention as well as many other fields of study (history or physics) or non-academics (Hancock and others). Though perhaps basing such measure upon what comprises of the New York Times Bestseller list is too simplistic in scale, for such a short article it paints an image of an understandable trend in public consumption. I really appreciated the self-awareness behind the idea that academics are often unable to bridge the divide between communicating within the halls of the Academy and outside of the Academy:

As professional archaeologists, we are proficient at communicating with ourselves. We present to each other at conferences and through journals that we write for ourselves. […] If we can give academic presentations to each other once or twice a year, surely we can give interesting, engaging talks to the public in our local libraries, historic societies, and public schools. If we can write articles for peer review, can we not also write trade books? Blogs? Podcasts?

I would like to see this assertion taken even one step further. In a modest monograph I wrote as a final essay for a Deep History course I took this last semester, I raised a few questions regarding why Archaeology and archaeologists are rarely, if ever, a Voice of Authority, and merely relegated to being Voices of Curiosity. Not to say that documentary series, trade books, or podcasts for curiosity sake are a bad thing, I, as many here, adore consuming such media whenever I can find it. However, I do often wonder why it is that it is rare to see a news expose, a radio call-in hour, or even members of public service involve archaeology or archaeologists. As archaeologists/anthropologists our research touches on many of the “Big Questions” facing society today: mass migration, climate change, and resource distribution among others. These are all issues we research on a daily basis from a myriad of time periods, geographic locations, and worldviews. Where, then, is the disconnect between this plethora of research and the public’s desire to know “What does an Archaeologist think about this?”

In our field, we have access to the entirety of human existence to tell our stories and teach our lessons from. This provides quite a blanket of material to engage, enthrall, exhilarate, as well as educate the non-archaeologists at large. Why does the assumption seem to stand that the public wish to digest this content as merely “debunking” of false narratives or subpar interpretations of fact? What can Archaeology, or more widely Academia, do to regain the respect or “clout” needed to again be involved in the discourse the same way economists, political philosophers, climatologists and other equally important fields find themselves? Of course this would have to begin with personal actions, and I know I am not doing nearly enough, but what is it that is missing that we can do together? I have left the monograph for that course, which can be found on my academia.edu page here, open for comments, and I would greatly appreciate any and all criticisms or advice given the topic. I continue to wish to grow and learn in the regard and would no doubt appreciate any comments, good or bad.

To end this little tangent of ranting and shameless self-plugging, I will provide some initial closing thoughts on the Record articles in question and end this Part I here, with Part II coming within the week. I do think that this thematic issue is a bit of what Hancock wants (or at least what I believe he would want given his statements in the past) in so far as it is serious engagement with his work from the “mainstream” academics. Though I do not believe that all mainstream academics are the problem given confusion over details of our human past, many confusions which will always persist given the very nature of studying any time or place directly inaccessible to the observer, I wholeheartedly believe Hancock probably has encountered some individual academics who are dogmatic, pompous, self-entitled, and unwilling (or worse: unable) to incorporate newer finds and information into their world view. There are problems within the Academy, and I highly doubt that any academic would attempt to state that academia is perfect (in my opinion, it is far from that), but a lot of qualms with the Academy can be blamed upon systemic incompetence rather than malice or Draconian desires to never be proven wrong. I will continue to unpack such notions in Part II, as this has gone on long enough for now, but in closing I would like to make a modest plea to those on either side of the debate to revel in the ambiguity, we are all equally confused by the realities we are presented and merely wish to make sense of it all to the best of our ability. And for one additional (almost) shameless self-plug.

See you all next week.